>
So the court was just enforcing a federal law. Not vindicating states rights.
>
Yeah, let’s not go *nuts* here now. That’s just crazy talk!
>
It would have been a better decision had it been based on the commerce clause. But the Supreme Court ruled against that approach a while back.
>
Commerce? How ‘bout the 9th/10th instead?
Someone might start to say, “Regulate in 2nd (vs. infringed) = Regulate elsewhere? Hey, that can’t be the *same*”,
As if Fedzilla has ANY authority within CA to begin....for any number of ‘issues’. Ahhhh, they went down THAT path and the whole house-of-cards could have begun falling down.
“Commerce? How ‘bout the 9th/10th instead?”
Well, those work together. If it’s not an enumerated power (commerce, for example) then it’s reserved to the states or the citizens. So if you talk about the Commerce Clause, you are talking about the 9th and 10th also.